How accurate is the leaked document on View from the wing?
This is a better link: New MR Terms & Conditions - Pastebin.com
Does 1.4.e. Finally gives some insight into how we will be “encouraged” to combine accounts - those hoping for carrots will be disappointed - it’s the stick approach.
1.4 e: It's clear that if you want to transfer points between Marriott and SPG you need to do it before 18 August.
Status matching is not completely clear. It's clear you won't be status matched after 18 August if you reach a higher level in one of the programmes, but not clear on whether a status that was matched prior to 18 August will remain in place.
1.5 a: Would be a reason not to combine accounts if you want to receive offers from both Marriott and SPG group hotels.
I don't see anything in the document saying whether or not combining accounts has any effect on earning lifetime status under legacy rules. For example, I think it's understood that points and nights earned at an SPG hotel prior to 18 August won't count towards Marriott lifetime status if accounts are merged. But what if accounts are merged after 18 August and a stay is subsequently made at an SPG hotel. Will that count towards Marriott lifetime status?
After 18th August if you have merged your accounts all hotels are effectively Marriott Hotels, there is one list of the 6000+ hotels, one redemption list and one cash and points list. I believe Marriott have said that once you merge your accounts your lifetime nights and years at platinum (or gold if that's what you are going for) from both programmes will be added together for lifetime purposes (points are not a requirement under the new programme).
Did everyone notice 3.2.e.iii? I think we were all operating under the presumption that there would be some truly outsized value for 5 months at previous all-suites properties like Al Maha, Mystique, or St. Regis Bora Bora, but it appears (if these T&C's are accurate) that many of the old high end SPG properties will remain "off chart" and cost many more points. Interesting that the W Maldives is listed but not the St. Regis Maldives.
Can we use points to apply towards legal fees to get this document translated to a workable level
I would recommend deferring any interpretations, conclusions, or opinions on these types of un-verified documents until which time the official publishing has been made by Marriott Rewards on their website.
Aah, human nature, it's fascinating. We apparently have burnt out over all of the speculatin', wishin, and hopin' and just outright pulling answers out of our sphincters. Whereas I share your caution (especially when even the Lurker has been 'revised' at times), I was hoping for some review and heads ups. This looks to me to be at least a 50/50 coin toss of this stuff being the real deal.
The guy who found it is Reply #43 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/starwood-starwood-preferred-guest/1924640-preview-new-program-s-t-cs-3.html I didn't copy it all, but this stuff sounds somewhat reasonable to me;
As the person who found them, I strongly doubt that theory. The location (a portion of Marriott's website, publicly available on the internet, without any sort of login required) where they were contained gives high confidence that they are final or near final T&Cs, but other details (namely what the URL where they were contained, and the fact that the pages were marked to not be indexed by search engines) makes me think that it's more of a slip-up that I happened to stumble upon. Namely a different page that linked to it happened to not be marked NOINDEX, and as such was indexed by Google. Another example of a page on that section of the site (like the terms and conditions) that is marked to not be indexed by Google: (and then he shows a chart that tech guys like yourself and others can understand - does it seem legit?)
Oh well, we'll get the "Actual" stuff soon; but as Drexel Burnham used to say, I'm highly confident it will still have ambiguity in it leading to more questions and even more wag guesses.
Good luck to all
BTW - this turned out to be a pretty dead on accurate 'leak'. Thanks again for sharing bernbriscoe
Retrieving data ...